Why Zimmerman is Guilty

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
So if Martin had killed Zimmerman, via the sidewalk, this would still be considered self defense.

No.
The reason is that Zimmerman had not done anything that legally constituted an overt threat up to that point.

Because Zimmerman had not committed a crime, or acted in a legally threatening manner, there was no legal justification for Martin to attack him.

So lets say your example had happened. The police would have asked Martin, “why did you kill him”. Martin would have said that he acted in self defense because he felt threatened. The police would have asked what the “threatening” act was. Martin would have said “he was following me”. The police would have said “and...?”, and if there was no legally “threatening” act on Zimmerman's part, would have arrested Martin.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
Martin felt threatened.

Following someone alone does not present a legitimate enough “threat” to justify self defense. Again, that is why you cannot attack a Private Investigator, or a media photographer who is following you. That is why actors have been arrested for striking photographers in the past.

You have as much legal right to travel on public, or open private, land as anyone else. Just because you happen to be going in the same direction at the same time as someone else, does not justify them being able to attack you.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
An unarmed individual is not a bonafied threat to an armed one.

Can you kill someone by smashing their head into the cement?
How about hitting them with a stone/brick?
So using the sidewalk as a weapon does constitute using a "weapon".

Originally posted by Willtell
Lady you have distorted the facts almost as much as Zimmerman has.

That's not true. There isn't any proof that Mr. Zimmerman lied about anything regarding this incident. Plus, everything I stated is backed by the evidence and trial footage.

Originally posted by Willtell
The trial established that Zimmerman lied and exaggerated his “beating” *snip*
If Zimmerman had his head bashed like he described on concrete he would have been dead. *snip*

No, it didn't. You can have your head bashed on concrete and suffer wounds like that. I have SEEN this happen, in a fight at a school I attended. Plus, you don't have to be wounded to be in fear for your life. Read the law.

Originally posted by Willtell
In-fact I wrote that if Trayvon attacked him as Zimmerman said then it was out of desperation and fear because a strange man was stalking him.

No, he attacked a "creepy *bleep* cracker". HIS attack was quite clearly based on racist motivations, not fear. A person in fear would have stayed home, which he didn't. A person in fear would have called police, which he didn't. You make claims based on NOTHING.

Originally posted by Willtell
So it is very likely that Zimmerman had the gun pulled on the kid and the kid panicked and went after Zimmerman. In that case Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter at least

No, that isn't likely at all. Had Zimmerman had the gun out, he would have shot sooner, and not allowed Martin to punch and further beat him.

Originally posted by Willtell
It is likely Lady. It was dark that night, and some of the witnesses believe Zimmerman was on top.

ONLY one witness stated that, based on the CHILD pics of Martin that were shown. Even she stated that the guy in the DARK jacket, NOT the red/orange one, was on top. That was Martin. Watch the testimony, instead of reading blogs.

Originally posted by Willtell
Likely confronted the scared kid with a gun and that started the scuffle which only lasted seconds. The kid screamed and Zimmerman shot him. The kid screamed because of the gun.
Remember THERE WAS NO BLOOD ON TRAYVONS HANDS!

Plenty of people stated that it was George that was screaming. Listening to multiple recordings of his voice, and to the screams, it's clearly George's voice.

Originally posted by Willtell
You accept the propaganda that he was a black thug.

No, I accept the facts. Proven facts concerning the character of both people. Facts aren't propaganda.

Originally posted by Willtell
Zimmerman lied and gave a self-serving story that is illogical.
A kid would attack a grown man with a gun
Of course only some kind of black beast and thug could do that.
Playing into the racist stereotypes that go back to slavery.
Check yourself out lady

You dropped your race card there. No one but a total idiot would attack someone they KNEW had a gun. Martin was OUT OF SIGHT, and returned. A scared kid wouldn't do what he did. Playing with one card isn't playing with a full deck.

Originally posted by Willtell
Again you distort.

You’re the one who is ignorant.

I wasn’t quoting the exact words.

The dispatcher did say

“WE DON’T NEED YOU TO DO THAT!

What does that mean?

YOU claimed he was told to back off. YOUR words, your distortion, not mine. He wasn't TOLD anything, except that following wasn't needed. Meaning, as the dispatcher stated on the stand, that he realized George took the TWO directives to let him (dispatcher) know of the guy did anything else, and then asking if he could see which way the guy went, to mean he should follow and check, and this would place George in danger, so he said, "We don't need you to do that." George IMMEDIATELY agreed, and headed back to his car. What do YOU think it means when Martin's friend says he was back home, and then that he later confronted George? She did state that. It means Martin went back to start a fight. THINK.

You can't call others racists for looking at the facts and evidence, and claim that Martin can't be guilty because he's black, and maintain any credibility.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

"Save it for the trial" suggests to me that you are not aware that the trial is done and over with and that the jury delivered their verdict of "Not Guilty". Why else would you make that statement?

George Zimmerman shot and killed an innocent boy.

You were making claims that Trayvon committed a felony. He didn't. He was never charged with a felony, nor was he ever convicted of a crime against Zimmerman. He is innocent of anything you say about him because George Zimmerman decided to shoot and kill him. ZImmerman was his judge, jury and executioner. He may be innocent of murder, but he still shot and killed an innocent boy.

Originally posted by votan

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Save it for the trial? The trial is already done and he has been acquitted? Are you just now hearing about the case? The only possible "trial" to come is a civil case being considered by the parents. They are going to try to get money from a guy who doesn't have much to begin with.

Im talking about Trayvon's trial.

George Zimmerman shot an innocent boy.

innocent boys don't double back to attack someone .

What was Trayvon convicted of?

Nothing?

Trayvon is an innocent boy.

Originally posted by Ansuzrune
reply to post by lostbook

 

I believe that if there is a neighborhood watch there should be some identifiable uniform like a special vest or crossing guard belt. Send letters to all residents. That simple step could have averted this whole tragedy. Treyvon would have been able to identify who Zimmerman was and simply raised his hands and explained himself. Now that should be a law. Since he had a car get a plugin red flashing light to be used only in the confines of the gated community.

Right....because bad guys never attack anyone in a uniform.....

WRONG. This would simply mean that the crooks would know who to target, so they weren't witnessed, and allow NW people to be intimidated and harassed and worse. All Martin saw was a "creepy *bleep* cracker", and a NW uniform would not have changed a thing.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

You are not free to approach. Florida has a Stand Your Ground Law, and if Trayvon Martin felt threatened, he had every right to attack.

So what is that radius the law defines around a person that some can approach not closer than?

Stand your ground doesn't give anyone the right to attack. It is in response to certain crime commissions or attempts.

Stand Your Ground DOES give the legal right for anyone that feels threatened to defend themselves, or even to strike first, if they feel they are in danger.

Trayvon Martin could have very well thought his life was in danger.

Alas, he will never get his day in court, because Zimmerman decided to kill an innocent boy.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
George Zimmerman shot and killed an innocent boy.

No, he shot someone who was under Florida Law committing “Aggravated Battery with the intent to do great bodily harm”.

Even without “stand your ground” or the “castle doctrine” this case STILL would have been found 'Not Guilty” under Florida law. That is why the police, the police chief, and the state prosecutor all REFUSED to prosecute Zimmerman.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
You were making claims that Trayvon committed a felony. He didn't.

He did.
Felony Aggravated Battery.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
He was never charged with a felony, nor was he ever convicted of a crime against Zimmerman.

They don't prosecute someone who has died.
If he had lived, he would have been charged with “Felony Aggravated Battery with the intent to do great bodily harm”.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
I haven't read all of the pages, but have seen all of the usual argument thrown around. Long story short, an armed adult shot an unarmed minor, there is no justification for this, it isn't right, it isn't even close to right.

Many of the people that have posted, while I may have disagreed with them politically, I still respected them. Several in this post have lost my respect. A grown ass man has no right to shoot an unarmed teenager, if you are that much of a wuss, then someone have mercy on your soul.

ETA: If Zimmerman had raped him, Zimmerman would be doing life.

edit on 7/16/2013 by BubbaJoe because: (no reason given)

So, an "unarmed" teen can assault a person, beat their head on pavement (proven), and the armed person can do nothing? Really? Martin WAS armed, with his fists and the pavement. Being a year under 18 isn't an excuse to commit a felony assault. When someone mugs you, be sure you check their ID before defending yourself. After all, teens never do anything wrong.... It Martin had killed George, he would be tried for murder, as an adult.

Attacking a person because you don't like their race (as in, calling them a "creepy *bleep* cracker") isn't right. It isn't even close to right.

Defending your life against an attacker, by any and all means necessary, certainly IS right. It IS justified.

reply to post by Willtell

Why do you believe Zimmerman?

The questions is. .. . Why Don't you?

Is it a "Race" Issue?

I have read through this garble several times and you keep repeating the same thing. .. .

He was a poor child that was scared.
He did the Only thing a little rat can do. . Fight Or Flight.
Since Zimmerman had a gun he had no choice but to fight.

I'll tell you what. I am going to cut that Horse S[SNIP]T down to size.

If the little boy was so scared.. . then why did he go to his house and then come back?

Well, .. that is because he made a drop of something that he didn't want to get caught with. Maybe stolen property, maybe drugs, maybe a gun. . . The list goes on. The point is that there was no need for him to go his house and then turn around and come back. Especially If he was a scared little boy.

Your argument is weak as hell and lacks substantial facts. You don't even have anything that is circumstantial to back up your claim.

So I asked again. .. Why do you NOT believe Zimmerman?
Are you related to Trayvon?
What motivates you to continually beat this dying horse?
There is more than enough evidence that casts a shadow of doubt as to Zimmerman’s guilt.
Would you convict a man based on you line of thinking?

Also, he didn't kill a small innocent child as you and the prosecutor seem to assert. Have you taken a trip to your local high school and had a look at what the 17 year olds look like these days? Especially a football player. Now put Zimmerman ( pudgy guy ) and Martin ( a football Player ) side by side and you tell me which is more capable of causing injury.

In addition, innocent children don’t take pictures of themselves smoking drugs and handling guns. You have also failed to mention that, along with the candy and headphones, he also had possession of a can of Arizona Ice Tea.

Let’s look at that a little closer. The candy as it turns out was Skittles. Maybe you don’t know so I will tell you .. . Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea are 2 of the 3 ingredients required to manufacture a powerful codeine concoction. AKA .. Drugs .. .

So by now your “Scared Little Boy” story has completely Unraveled. It’s useless as T@TS on a boar.

Now I ask again. . What motivates you to defend a troubled juvenile delinquent with such conviction? And why do you so dearly believe that Zimmerman gunned down a small innocent child unprovoked?

I think now is the time to re-group and gather your facts.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Alas, he will never get his day in court, because Zimmerman decided to kill an innocent boy.

For discussion sake this is a large presumption; just as large as a presumption that Zimmerman set out to kill someone (the layman's term of murder; in which the State could not prove)....

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Stand Your Ground DOES give the legal right for anyone that feels threatened to defend themselves, or even to strike first, if they feel they are in danger.

Not exactly.
You have to be able to prove that there was a credable overt threat of some type. Following someone does NOT constitute such a threat.

Again, that is why photographers can get away with stalking celebrities, and when the celebrity hits the photographer, they go to jail.

There is no law that restricts your ability to follow someone, or to walk down the same path, at the same time, they are. Stalking is a very special case, requires repeated events, and there must be some evidence of a threat.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Trayvon Martin could have very well thought his life was in danger.

His legal options at that point were:
1)Get help. (call the police, knock on a door, etc)
2)Flee.
3)Verbally confront (tell him to back off and not come any closer)

Nope, no trolling going on here.............

Zimmerman has been proven innocent. I hope he wins enough in his defamation suits to outrun the likes of those here wishing to continue trying him in the "court" of public opinion.

Originally posted by Willtell
Zimmerman’s wounds were minor. Even if he got them from this fight they didnt warrant him to shot the kid.

The Jury disregarded the details of his statements and just went with the overall distorted tale to justify acquitting him.

According to the law -

a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

link

This means he did NOT have to have ANY wounds at all, much less serious ones, for self defense to apply. What part of this is so difficult for you to grasp? Self defense and deadly force are justified to PREVENT great bodily harm or death. If you have no concept of the law, you should obtain some knowledge before posting such a thread.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Willtell

 

Oh cool so you have proof to back up your story right?

Where's the youtube video?

edit on 15-7-2013 by grey580 because: (no reason given)

he has about as much evidence as zimmerman does. where is zimmermans video?

its easier to have a pov when youre.. alive. right?

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Willtell
Zimmerman’s wounds were minor. Even if he got them from this fight they didnt warrant him to shot the kid.

The Jury disregarded the details of his statements and just went with the overall distorted tale to justify acquitting him.

According to the law -

a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

link

This means he did NOT have to have ANY wounds at all, much less serious ones, for self defense to apply. What part of this is so difficult for you to grasp? Self defense and deadly force are justified to PREVENT great bodily harm or death. If you have no concept of the law, you should obtain some knowledge before posting such a thread.

I doubt this wouldve been brought up if martin had a conceal carry and shot zimmerman.

no one knows what happened that night accept the 2 of them.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

You are not free to approach. Florida has a Stand Your Ground Law, and if Trayvon Martin felt threatened, he had every right to attack.

So what is that radius the law defines around a person that some can approach not closer than?

Stand your ground doesn't give anyone the right to attack. It is in response to certain crime commissions or attempts.

Stand Your Ground DOES give the legal right for anyone that feels threatened to defend themselves, or even to strike first, if they feel they are in danger.

Trayvon Martin could have very well thought his life was in danger.

Alas, he will never get his day in court, because Zimmerman decided to kill an innocent boy.

The point wasn't self defense.

Maybe you are using the word 'attack' meaning defense. If someone points a gun at you then you can defend yourself. That is not an attack by you - you were attacked first.

The approach stuff is not a law.

reply to post by Willtell

story that YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.

We all gathered that much from your posts, all you have to defend your statements are emotional outbursts. Thank God the jurors didn't do that.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
So if Martin had killed Zimmerman, via the sidewalk, this would still be considered self defense.

No.
The reason is that Zimmerman had not done anything that legally constituted an overt threat up to that point.

Because Zimmerman had not committed a crime, or acted in a legally threatening manner, there was no legal justification for Martin to attack him.

So lets say your example had happened. The police would have asked Martin, “why did you kill him”. Martin would have said that he acted in self defense because he felt threatened. The police would have asked what the “threatening” act was. Martin would have said “he was following me”. The police would have said “and...?”, and if there was no legally “threatening” act on Zimmerman's part, would have arrested Martin.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
Martin felt threatened.

Following someone alone does not present a legitimate enough “threat” to justify self defense. Again, that is why you cannot attack a Private Investigator, or a media photographer who is following you. That is why actors have been arrested for striking photographers in the past.

You have as much legal right to travel on public, or open private, land as anyone else. Just because you happen to be going in the same direction at the same time as someone else, does not justify them being able to attack you.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
An unarmed individual is not a bonafied threat to an armed one.

Can you kill someone by smashing their head into the cement?
How about hitting them with a stone/brick?
So using the sidewalk as a weapon does constitute using a "weapon".

edit on 7/16/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

I honestly understand your rational, no problem with that. While we may differ, yours is obviously from education, and my feelings are from emotion. I spend a great deal of time in less than stellar neighborhoods. As a white male I have never been offered anything but assistance, sometimes with a stated price. If I was walking through a black neighborhood, on a cold rainy night, and a black man was following me, I would feel threatened. Trayvon Martin was walking through a white neighborhood, doing nothing wrong, and the watch captain is stalking him, I can see where he felt threatened.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
This means he did NOT have to have ANY wounds at all, much less serious ones, for self defense to apply. What part of this is so difficult for you to grasp? Self defense and deadly force are justified to PREVENT great bodily harm or death. If you have no concept of the law, you should obtain some knowledge before posting such a thread.

"Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your Ground" are both irrelevant in this case.
Even without either law, going back to old self defense law, Zimmerman would still be innocent.

This is because he was pinned on his back, with Martin on top.
That effectively cuts off any line of retreat.

reply to post by BubbaJoe

ETA: If Zimmerman had raped him, Zimmerman would be doing life.

Where in the Hell did that come from? Rape? As an Act of Defense against an Assailant?

You are missing some Marbles buddy.